Expectations of Political Leaders

What should we expect of our political leaders? That is, those public officials presently in office or prospectively seeking to be in office? Should we expect them to be mirror images of our own prejudices and positions, for example? Should we expect them to change their positions on important issues? Should we expect them to communicate clearly with us as to whatever their present positions on such issue are? Let’s consider each question in turn.

First, should we expect our political leaders to mirror our own present prejudices and positions, regarding, say, the latest “hot button” issues? Even though we live and vote in a constitutional republic or representative democracy, the answer clearly has to be “No.” Facts and issues change, people mature, even political leaders. What our political leaders owe us, therefore, and what we should expect from them at all times is their best judgment exercised in the affairs of state. That’s what the great 18th century English parliamentarian and rhetorician Edmund Burke said he owed his constituents and all they should expect of him: his best judgment on the matters that came before him. Q: Could any one be elected today on the basis of so singular a commitment?

Second, should we expect public officials to communicate clearly with us as to whatever are their present positions on major matters? Of course, we should, but how can they do so as long as they continue to be punished for being clear on matters controversial? Suppose Senators Barack Obama and/or John McCain believe that a crucial part of any comprehensive American energy plan for the next decade required a doubling of the federal excise tax on gasoline. Dare he say so during the rough and tumble of the coming presidential campaign? I think not.

Third, should we expect public officials to expand their limited political capital only on issues that matter? “Yes” ought to be our answer. After all, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787: “The basis of our government [is]…the opinion of the people.” But, to make a reality of such an answer we must learn to resist the siren song of politicians’ pandering to our present prejudices; that’s so especially on such emotional issues as fighting the teaching of Darwin’s evolutionary theory of biology – along with, say, Newton’s theory of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity – in public schools, insisting on the placement of replicas of one version of Moses’ Ten Commandments in public courthouses, and mandating a return of sectarian prayer to public schools.

Fourth and finally, should we expect public officials ever to change their positions on important issues? Well, of course, we should, for the same reasons the rest of us change ours: We become aware of new information bearing on the subject and/or we ourselves simply mature to a new level of understanding of some complex matter.

Consider these matters:

• Whether or not the United States should set a date for the ultimate withdrawal of the main body of American military forces in Iraq, or
• Whether the U.S. should directly negotiate with anti-American authoritarian states, or
• Whether the Second Amendment confers a collective or individual right to bear arms or
• Whether the revenues of big oil companies here should be taxed at a higher rate.
  

Each of these issues has been the basis of the charge of “flip-flopping” by one candidate or another during the past few weeks of the presidential campaign.

In a speech in July 1846, Daniel Webster, America’s then greatest orator, statesman and senator, said this on the subject: “Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes in circumstances, are often justifiable.” Nineteenth century orator Wendell Phillips agreed: “I will utter what I believe today, [even] if it should contradict all I said yesterday.” Is that what we should expect of our political leaders? To never change one’s opinion is effectively to state that one is never wiser today than yesterday!

Words do matter

I have been a serious student of language since I was a sophomore at Auburn University in 1961. That’s when my English professor and mentor Ruth Faulk introduced me to George Orwell’s famous essay, "Politics and the English Language." Reading that classic analysis of the debauching of the English language was a revelation then – and one that has stayed clear with me for nearly half a century.

Language matters: It’s what makes us human … the link we share with others. It’s the legal tender of communication. Without resort to language, it would be all but impossible to stimulate in others anything like the ideas and feelings we having within ourself – and so impossible to communicate effectively.

Words, in particular, matter. They are the coinage of communication, enabling us to engage in useful exchanges with other human beings.

Some words matter because they label and frame large, important concepts – such words as abortion, freedom, love, patriotism, and war. Other words matter because they are small but have the power as Orwell first showed me, to debauch language itself. Two examples of that have been in the news lately.

The two examples concern two quite evident verbal trends in our time. The first one was the subject an analytical essay in the New York Times by Clyde Haberman. It focuses on the ubiquitous use of the “F” word. He observed:

The reality is that this vulgar word has been tossed about with such abandon in public for so many years that New Yorkers tend to tune it out. Its endless, and mindless, repetition left them numb long ago. By now, the word is no longer shocking, just tedious.

Through frequent use, “a world like this begins to be less of a curse word,” said Ricardo Ortheguy, a sociolinguist at the City University of New York Graduate Center. “The more you use it, the less dirty it is.”

He discussed several possible causes of the phenomenon, which, of course, is hardly limited to the streets and offices of NYC. One is that “boundaries between public space and private are being erased. Cell phones contribute mightily to that, said another sociolinguist, John V. Singler of New York University. ‘The range of places where it’s O.K. to use that word has grown enormously.” Professor Singler said. By now, he said, “the real taboo words – and even those depend on who’s saying them – have to do much more with race.”

You routinely hear Wall Street suits use the word at high decibels in the subway. Police officers bounce it casually among one another, no matter who is around to hear it. Teenagers use it all the time. Some people walk around with the word screaming from their T-shirts – an insight, perhaps, into their capacity for self-degradation."

The second verbal trend was discussed by Pulitzer Prize-winning author David McCullough during his commencement speech to graduates of Boston College. He said, in part: “Please, please do what you can to cure the verbal virus that seems increasingly rampant among your generation.” He said he’s particularly troubled by the “relentless, wearisome use of words such as like, awesome and actually.”

“Just imagine if in his inaugural address, John F. Kennedy had said, ‘Ask not what your country can, you know, do for you, but what you can, like, do for your country actually.’ “ he said.

The AP news story on the speech ended thus: Graduates apparently thought his speech was, like, awesome. They gave him a standing ovation.